Friday, January 11, 2013

Amy Pascal is the co-chair of Sony Pictures. That's the studio that released Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty. Pascal released the following statement today:Zero Dark Thirty does not advocate torture. To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate. We fully support Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal and stand behind this extraordinary movie. We are outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda. This film should be judged free of partisanship. To punish an Artist's right of expression is abhorrent. This community, more than any other, should know how reprehensible that is. While we fully respect everyone's right to express their opinion, this activity is really an affront to the Academy and artistic creative freedom. This attempt to censure one of the great films of our time should be opposed. As Kathryn Bigelow so appropriately said earlier this week, "depiction is not endorsement, and if it was, no artist could ever portray inhumane practices; no author could ever write about them; and no filmmaker could ever delve into the knotty subjects of our time." We believe members of the Academy will judge the film on its true merits and will tune out the wrongful and misdirected rhetoric.

Disclosure, I've met Pascal. I don't 'know' her. I doubt she'd even recognize me if I walked up to her and said hello. She is a friend of C.I.'s. I've encountered her several times through C.I. She's a nice person but I'm not her friend and wouldn't pretend to know her.

Reading the statement today, I'm really getting Thursday's "Iraq snapshot." Zero Dark Thirty got nothing but attacks from a certain rabid and unintelligent segment of the population. And there was no defense of it. Ava and C.I. defended it (see especially "Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch"), Ann defended it.

But there was a campaign against the film and there was no campaign by Sony for the film. They allowed the ridiculous right-winger Glenn Greenwald and a bunch of closeted Communists -- born and in-bred in NYC -- forever lamenting on WBAI about "the little red school house" and thinking they're so cute -- smear the film, attack the film and go to town on it.

The campaign against the film was rooted in sexism. The same people led no such campaign against 24 or its successor Homeland. But when a woman directs a film, they get offended if it's not Merchant Ivory. That fat f**k Bret Easton Ellis made that clear in his sexist comments and comparing Bigelow to Sofia Copola.

All the same men who had attacked the two women who may have been raped by Julian Assange, all those same pigs, were involved in the attack on Bigelow:

Glenn Greenwald, Michael Ratner, Michael S. Smith, Ray McGovern . . .

Go down the list. They're pigs. I consider Debra Sweet a pig as well. To call a protest on a film she hasn't seen? That's not only stupid, that's censorship. World Can't Wait can go straight to hell. And they can take the chicken s**t Center for Constitutional Rights (as defined by Closeted Communists). You know what?

Don't trust f**king Michael Ratner. Don't trust the b.s. Center. They pretend to care about Guantanamo but when Matthew Diaz provided them with a list of 550 prisoners in Guantanamo, they handed that list over to the Justice Dept. getting Diaz prosecuted and disbarred.

Where's the Center's accountability for what they did to Matthew Diaz?

Hell, where the f**k is there acknowledgment of what they did to Matthew Diaz?

They should be ashamed of themselves.

They wanted a war on women. They're going to find out real quick that the war backfired on them.

They started this war. Tough s**t for them. I'm a photographer, I don't take kindly to a bunch of self-satisfied pricks who've never done anything artistic in their lives -- hold on for a little bit of fun -- deciding that they have the skills to evaluate art and that only their opinion is valid.

You know what's sad. If you've attacked an artist, like so many have Bigelow, I would really hope that my unemployed son wasn't hoping to be a musician. I would really hope that my son, the apple of my eye, wasn't now blackballed in the music industry.

I hope people are happy with their decision to engage in sexism. I hope they realize that women won't stand for it.

Zero Dark Thirty covers what happened. It does so in film language which a dumb ass closeted-Communist attorney would never understand. You have to compress. It has a point of view, the film. It does not argue for torture. I'm sorry that so many people lack the ability to review art. I'm sorry that so many lack critical thought abilities.

I'm really glad that a number of people are working as I type to extract more than a pound of flesh on those who have lied about the film, distorted the film, used sexism and so much more.

For example, when your son's dreams that seemed so close, so in reach, now never come true, remember you killed your own child's chances at happiness.

(Everyone's going to assume I'm referring to C.I. She's actually staying out of it to a degree. She's a resource for a number of people who want to extract revenge. They call her and ask and she'll tell them how to best hit the sexist pigs where it hurts. But so far, she's not actively engaged in this. A male director -- Academy Award winner -- tells me that C.I.'s about to get involved. He knows her, they're very close, and he says that this is C.I. She thinks things through. She tries to get to a calm place so she's not acting out of anger. And when she gets to that calm place, she makes a decision. He thinks she will take part. But at present, she's just a resource. "How do I hurt ____?" "His wife wants to sit on the ______ and thought she'd bought a seat. Call ____, explain what's going on and ____ can ensure that there is no available seat.")

Friday,
January 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq sees another
prison break, Iraqis demonstrate around the country, clerics and
political officials issue statements of support for the protesters,
political leaders make it clear repeatedly that Iraq is on the wrong
path, and more.

As US President Barack Obama prepares for his second term, the Cabinet faces changes. Feminist Majority Foundation issued the following today on the departure of the Secretary of Labor:

Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation and Feminist Majority

Statement on the Departure of Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

The
Feminist Majority Foundation and Feminist Majority salute Secretary of
Labor Hilda Solis, the first Latina to head a major federal agency, for
her outstanding accomplishments in fighting for women workers and for
all workers. Solis' leadership was especially important at a time when
the United States was facing the worst recession since the Great
Depression and women workers were, for the first time, roughtly one-half
of the nation's paid workforce. She brought a unique Latina, feminist,
environmentalist and union perspective to the Department. Secretary
Solis made sure women workers were not forgotten as she worked to fight
for and support policies to create more jobs. Never forgetting her own
roots, she found passion for, believed in, and valued the common people
and their struggles for advancement as well as the importance of the
union movement for build the middle class.

Secretary
Solis was always on the front lines fighting for women workers. She
reinvigorated the Women's Bureau, reached out to women's organizations
fighting to increase employment opportunities for women and expanded
funding for community colleges that service millions of low income
women. In funding programs at community colleges, the Labor Department,
as Solis has stated, expanded "employer-specific" job training for
millions of people and "transformed" community colleges into an "engine
of economic growth."

Ms. Magazined heralded
Secretary Solis' appointment with a headline "New Sheriff in Town; the
First Latina to Head Labor will Enforce Fair Treatment for all U.S.
Workers." She did exactly that. The Labor Department, under her
leadership, enforced federal contract compliance regulations and wage
and hour regulations protecting workers, especially women, people of
color, low income individuals, and retirees. The Department Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs conducted an impressive number of
investigations and collected a record amount of back wages for workers
who had been denied overtime and leave benefits as well as pay owed them
by their employers. Moreover, the Labor Department under Solis
recorded some $5 billion for retirees and their families.

Solis,
a role model for equal employment, practiced what she preached. She
recruited and hired women and people of color to top leadership
positions in the Department, including her chief of staff, chief
economists, and as leaders of top bureaus, agencies and programs of the
department. Solis, in very difficult times, revived and greatly
strengthened the Department of Labor's legacy for improving workers'
rights and economic justice. The Feminist Majority and Feminist
Majority Foundation look forward to supporting her in new capacities as
she continues her work and passion for working women and men as well as
economic and social justice.

###

After announcing her decision to step down, Hilda Solis offered her thoughts on the position in a series of Tweets including:

In
Iraq, many things take place that influence the country's direction.
Also true, events outside of Iraq can impact the country as well. For
years now, the Turkish military has been using war planes to bomb
northern Iraq with the stated intent of killing the PKK. Who are the
PKK? Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk."

Three PKK members were killed yesterday -- as CNN Mohammed Tawfeeq noted in a Tweet.

Diane Rhem: Courtney, tell us about these Kurdish activists who were slain in Paris on Thursday.

Courtney
Kube: Yeah, it wasn't -- at first -- a well publicized story and then
it really started to break yesterday in the international media. There
were these three Kurdish exiles that were working in Paris. They went
--

Diane Rehm: Female.

Courtney
Kube: Female. All young women. I was astonished, one of them was born
in 1988. I thought, "Wow, how young." But they went missing the other
night. Their friends broke into their offices and they were found to
have been executed. In fact, the French Interior Minister showed up
within hours and he said that they were summarily executed on the site.
So the problem with this is, you know, as in situations like this,
there's all differenst sides and people blaming -- one side blaming the
other. The PKK is saying that they believe the Turkish government --
Turkish nationalist -- who were angry at recent talks between Turkey and
the PKK who don't want the Kurds to have any additional power, autonomy
or rights -- that they did this as a show to break down the talks. The
PKK is -- Or, I'm sorry, the Turkish government is saying that there's
infighting between the PKK, that these people, they are the ones who
are very militant who don't want talks. I mean, whatever side ends up
being correct, if one of the two, what is clear out of this is that the
talks that have just began recently -- Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan just acknowledged them, that they've been speaking to this PKK
leader who's been jailed in solitary confiencement for the last decade,
that the Intelligence Ministry has been speaking to him to try and
broker some sort of an end to the violence. And those talks are in
serious jeopardy over this incident.

It
is the first time that such a senior member of the PKK has been killed
in Europe. There has been a tacit agreement between the PKK and the
Turkish government that no such high-profile attacks would be carried
out against either senior PKK members or senior members of the
government.

During the 1980s, there were
some attacks believed to be from within the Turkish state against
members of the militant Armenian group Asala, but there have been no
political assassinations targeting the PKK.

The
Paris killings come against the backdrop of fresh peace talks between
jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and the Turkish government. Those
talks have not been easy and have opponents on both sides.

The
Turkish government says the previous round of peace talks was derailed
because of a clash between Turkish soldiers and the PKK in June 2011.

Thursday's killings will make the current negotiations even more difficult, no matter who might be behind the attack.

Today's primary focus, however, was on an escape. The Iraq Times reports there has been a Taji prison break with 12 prisoners fleeing -- some of whom are said to have been sentenced to death. AP states the inmates escaped through cell windows. Al Bawaba adds,
"While sources agree that all of the inmates who broke out of jail on
Friday are Iraqi, the number is disputed. An interior ministry
official put the number at 12 while a military source claimed there were
16 escapees." An unnamed military officer tells AFP,
"They escaped from Taji prison after they got hold of the guards'
weapons. It could be there was cooperation from the guards."

Nouri used the extra-Constitutional Tigris Operation Command to suppress movement in Kirkuk, Alsumaria reports,
and the military force prevented people from entering. They cut off
roads in an attempt to stop those marching in Hawija as well.
Demonstration organizer Banyan Obeidi tells the network that the Tigris
Operation Command was not present to provide protection but to prevent
the demonstrators and to block them." In Nineveh Province, Alsumaria reports
the people turned out following morning prayers and that they renewed
their call for the innocent prisoners and detainees to be released and
for those officials who have raped and tortured women in Iraqi prisons
to be prosecuted. Nineveh Province is where Nouri has sent the military
in an attempt to stop the protests. But the governor of the province,
Atheel al-Nujaifi (also spelled Ethel al-Nujaifi) has refused to allow
the protests to be stopped and declared this week, "I am not an employee
of Nouri al-Maliki. I am servant to the people of Nineveh."
al-Nujaifi is the brother of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.
He is also in conflict with Nouri who, in 2011, began demanding that
al-Nujaifi step down as governor. Currently, al-Nujaifi is demanding
that Nouri hand over a soldier to the province, the soldier raped a
young girl. Nouri's refused to honor the arrest warrant. al-Nuajifi is
also demanding a serious investigation into Monday's protest
when Nouri's military ignored al-Nujaifi and the Provincial Council's
orders that the square in downtown Mosul be opened to the protesters,
the military ignored it and moved in injuring at least four protesters
in the process.

Omar
al-Saleh: It's the third consecutive week of protests and the numbers
are increasing. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets
across Sunni provinces including parts of Baghdad. But despite the
heavy security presence and attempts by the army to prevent people from
reaching mosques, many showed up for Friday prayers. At Umm al-Qura
mosque, politicians and clerics called on protesters to carry on.

Rafiaa
al-Issawi: I warn the army against being a tool to curb protesters. I
call on you to carry on until your demands are met.

Omar
al-Saleh: In Ramadi, the birth place of the protests, tens of
thousands continued their sit-in. They warned Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki of using force against them. In Samarra and Mosul, thousands
more demanded an end to what they describe as a marginalization of
Sunnis. They also want the abolishment of an anti-terrorism law which
they say targets them. And the release of Sunni prisoners. The
government's stance is that all demands should be dealt with according
to the Iraqi Consittution. It blames foreign countries of supporting
the protesters to ignite a sectarian strife.

Alsumaria reports
that cleric and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council delivered a
sermon today calling for dialogue among all the parties and refusing to
lay the blame on protesters. Also weigh in? Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani whose message today, delivered by Sheikh Abdel Mahdi
al-Karbalai during morning prayers, was a call for unity and
responsibility. Alsumaria reports
he stated that the political blocs are responsible for the current
problems and that the politicians and the security services must
exercise restraint and utilize wisdom. He warned against attacking the
protesters. All Iraq News notes
that he spoke of the need for government institutions to be independent
and to preserve the independence so that no one official could exploit
the powers of the government for personal gain. Cleric and movement
leader Moqtada al-Sadr also weighed in today. Kitabat notes
that Moqtada explained the popular protests in Mosul, Salahuddin and
Anbar are not against government but against policies and that it is the
right of the Iraqi to speak their beliefs. He noted that there had
been some early mistakes (referring to some slogans and banners in early
protests -- they generally expressed the not uncommon belief in Iraq
that things were better before the US invasion) but that these are cries
to rally the nation. He stated that Nouri is the one throwing out
obstacles. Alsumaria reports
Minister Rafia al-Issawi and Sunni Endowment president Ahmed
Abdul-Ghafoor Samarrai showed their support by attending a demonstration
in Baghdad following morning prayers. All Iraq News reports
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq issued a statement today
declaring that force should not be used against the protesters. Others
went further. For example, Kitabat reports
Sunni Sheikh Abdul Malik Saadi stated that it is the resposibility of
Iraq's rulers to hear the protesters' demands, that it is the right of
citizens to exercise their rights, and that the security forces are to
provide security and their role is not to target the protesters but to
protect them. The Iraqi people are partners in the country, the Sheikh
noted, citizens, military, they are partners. He called on the
protesters to be strong and patient, not to take up arms and he called
on the military to protect the protesters.

Of course, there
are two groups of protesters in Iraq currently. First you have the
vast group of thousands of legitimate protesters asking for a better
Iraq and then you have the tiny bands of Nouri's goons who sometimes
make it into the 'hundreds.' Both were out today.

The tiny faux group registered the most in Najaf. Let's call them the Pat Boones. A sign of how small they are? All Iraq News notes
"dozens." But then few want to be an ass kisser. Visit any high
school and ask for a show of hands if you doubt it. The Pat Boones are
demanding that things stay the same and that mass arrests continue. Aswat al-Iraq adds
that they are calling "for boycotting Turkish and Qatari companies.
They found support from State of Law MP Ali Mirza who called for
his "government to deny work for Turkish and Qatari companies, as well
as reviewing diplomatic relations in order to cut off relations with
them." Press TV notes a small turn out in Basra as well.

By contrast, Kitabat notes "tens of thousands" of real protesters turned out forllowing Friday prayers. Alsumaria notes
thousands marched in Salahuddin Province to show their support with the
Anbar Province protesters who are demonstrating and continue their
sit-in. The outlet notes that local officials, religious scholars
and tribal leaders are part of the demonstrations and that the demands
include the release of the innocent prisoners and detainees, the
prosecution of those who have tortured or raped Iraqi women in the Iraqi
prisons and detention centers, and for the government to change its
current course. Salam Faraj and Jafia Abduljabbar (AFP) report
that protests took place in Ramadi, Samarra, Mosul, Tikrit, Adhamiyah
and Ghazaliyah and "Protesters also blocked off the highway linking Iraq
to Syria and Jordan for a 20th day in western Anbar province, while in
the northern city of Kirkuk, hundreds of protesters waved banners and
raised flags". Patrick Markey and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) observe,
"Three weeks of mass protests reflect deep discontent among Sunnis who
say Maliki's Shi'ite-led government has marginalised their minority
community, increasing worries Iraq may slide back into the sectarian
violence of its recent past." The World Tribune notes, "The protesters blocked a highway to Jordan and Syria, which halted trade and passengers to and from Iraq."

In
one of the more surprising moments of unity today, the KDP and PUK
declared their support for the protesters. The Kurdistan Democratic
Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan are the two big political
parties -- political rivals -- in the KRG. Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani (currently receiving medical treatment in Germany) is the
leader of the PUK while Massoud Barzani is the President of the
Kurdistan Regional Government (semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq)
and the leader of the KDP. Alsumaria reports
the two parties came together today to make a joint declaration of
support for the protesters and to insist that the course the country
is on is wrong and unacceptable.

The Iraq Times reports
that Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya (political slate that came in first
in the 2010 parliamentary elections) held a press conference today to
talk about the crisis that has led to demonstrations throughout Iraq.
He noted that Iraqiya and he himself had been sounding alarms for some
time about what was taking place. He noted the policies (being
implemented by Nouri) were dividing the country and he called for unity
to protect Iraq. Iraqiya won in 2010 as part of Iraq's rejection of
sectarianism. This trend could be seen in the 2009 provincial elections
as well.

This embrace of a national identity
could have been fostered, could have been encouraged. The US government
refused to do that. There was more concern in the Obama White House
that Nouri al-Maliki get a second term than that the voters in Iraq be
listened to, that the Constitution be honored or that democracy be
assisted. The White House backed Nouri who threw a tantrum which lasted
over eight months as he refused to allow the Iraqi government to move
forward. While he dug his feet in refusing to allow a new prime
minister to be named, Barack had the US government spend their time in
Iraq trying to force the various political actors to accept a second
term for Nouri. Since he didn't win the election, the Constitution
couldn't allow this. So the White House came up with the Erbil
Agreement to get around the voters and the Constitution. The Erbil
Agreement was a legal contract that the White House assured political
leaders was binding and that it would have the US government's full
support. In the contract, political leaders agree to allow Nouri to
have a second term as prime minister. In exchange, Nouri agrees to
allow various things to happen such as he agrees to implement Article
140 of the Iraqi Constitution -- a census and referendum will be held in
Kirkuk to determine who has claim to the disputed area.

The
things he agrees to in this contract are largely things he was already
supposed to do. Article 140, for example, is the Constitution and he was
supposed to have implemented that no later than the end of 2007 -- it's
written into the Constitution, that date. From 2006 to 2010, Nouri had
every opportunity to implement Article 140. He refused to do so.

Why in the world would the Kurds (who see Kirkuk as their region) believe Nouri would now implement it?

Because
the White House voched for the contract. The White House swore -- US
Vice President Joe Biden personally gave Iraqi President Jalal Talabani
his word -- that the Erbil Agreement would be followed, the US
government would insist upon it.

In addition
to the White House insisting they would back the contract, the White
House also used shame on the Iraqi politicians. For over eight months,
no government had been seated. An election took place, no one was
seated from it. It was the record at that time. It was embarrassing
and the White House played that angle and they also told the various
political blocs that Nouri had no intention of stepping down so the
stalemate could go on for months more. 'Be the adult,' the other
political blocs were told, 'and let Iraq move forward.'

So
they signed this contract (November 2010) and immediately after Nouri
was named prime minister-designate. This is November. Nouri
immediately cancels the planned census for December 2010. It's just
temporary, he insists. And these other things he's supposed to do, it's
too soon, but he will do them. Ayad Allawi and Iraqiya called him out
but the press rushed to cover for Nouri. Even when Nouri couldn't name a
Cabinet in 30 days, the press covered for Nouri insisting in January
2011 that he would name a Minister of Defense, a Minister of National
Security and a Minister of Interior in a matter of weeks. Yet back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." That's
still true.

Nouri
didn't follow the contract. He used the Erbil Agreement to get his
second term and then trashed it. By the summer of 2011, that was
obvious to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds and Iraqiya who were publicly
calling him out for his refusal to follow the Erbil Agreement. And the
US? Silent. Forgotten and ignored were all the promises that the Erbil
Agreement was a binding contract and that the White House would stand
behind it. It's not only destroyed the way political leaders see the US
government, it's harmed Iraq, denying democracy, making a mockery out
of the Iraqi Constitution and telling voters that they don't determine
who rules, the US government does.

For more on that, you can refer to John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

Today in DC at the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq and we'll note this.

QUESTION:
Victoria, the schism within the Iraqi coalitions and political forces
and so on is getting wider. And in fact, you talked about the Sunni/Shia
divide in Pakistan. It's also getting quite obvious in Iraq. Some
people are calling for the government to dissolve. Some people are
calling for the parliament to dissolve. Maliki's saying that he's
collected 130 names from the parliament to call for a new elections or
dissolve it and so on. Are these just parliamentarian machinations, or
are the they the birth pangs of democracy, or are we seeing the country
being split along sectarian lines?

MS.
NULAND: Well, we've talked about this quite a bit over the last few
weeks, if not even before Christmas. Obviously, we're concerned about
increased political tensions inside Iraq. We have continually met with
people on all sides, calling on them to exercise restraint, to respect
the right of peaceful expression, to talk to each other, to engage in a
broad national dialogue on the issues that divide them, and particularly
that all parties ought to avoid any actions that subvert the rule of
law or that provoke ethnic and sectarian tensions or risk undermining
the significant progress that Iraq has made or the Iraqi constitution,
which is obviously very carefully and delicately balanced. So we will
continue the advocacy efforts in that direction that Ambassador Steve
Beecroft makes every single day with Iraqis of all stripes.

Any
US governemnt official pontificating about "rule of law" looks like an
idiot to Iraqis because the White House disregarded the Iraqi
Constitution and the will of the voters to keep Nouri prime minister.
As for US Ambassador Stephen Beecroft, All Iraq News reports
he visited the office of Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq, Thursday and that he and al-Hakim discussed the need to
preserve calm and not escalate the current crisis."

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Also surprisingly snubbed in the Best Director category: Kathryn Bigelow,
who made history as the first ever female Best Director champion for
"The Hurt Locker" in 2010. Bigelow was also nominated by the Globes and
DGAs and considered a safe bet for her second directing nom. Maybe the controversy surrounding the film hurt her with Oscar, or perhaps it was just an intensely competitive year.

Congratulations, Glenn Greenwald and World Can't Wait and all the other women-haters.

Here's CNN:Bigelow's snub was particularly surprising, given that she and her film
had dominated critics' lists during awards season. The film, about an
obsessive CIA agent pursuing Osama bin Laden, may have been affected by
controversy surrounding its torture scenes. Some detractors suggested
the scenes implied that torture contributed to the success of the
operation.

Since there’s nothing overtly lesbian or bisexual about this year’s
Oscars--a larger problem that is indicative of mainstream cinema's
apparent disitnerest in the lives of queer women, which is a whole
bigger rant --we’ll get to some very minor adjacencies, but first, the
award for the most ridiculous snub of the season goes to Academy voters
for failing to nominate Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow, who made history as the first woman ever to win a directing Oscar for The Hurt Locker. But
this year the Academy failed to nominate Bigelow, even though she’s
landed on virtually all of the end-of-the-year critics’ lists. Rather,
the Academy saw fit to reward Stephen Spielberg for his bland
hyper-American dreck with Lincoln.

If the above bothers you, it bothers me, it's about to get worse. I called C.I. and said, "What's up with this s**t?" She said that the Academy is very sexist and that the attacks on Kathryn gave the Academy an excuse not to nominate her. "With a woman director, they're not looking for a reason to nominate her, they're looking for a reason to justify not nominating her. You realize we're just talking about three American women when it comes to Best Director, right? Jane Campion was nominated for The Piano in 1993. Ten years later, you get Sofia Coppola for Lost in Translation. Then in 2009, Kathryn gets nominated for The Hurt Locker. That's it. Just three women."

I asked about "American"? C.I. explained that Lina Wertmuller was the first woman nominated for 1976's Seven Beauties. This is a deeply sexist film. Lina's a sexist woman. Her films usually 'explore' capitalism. That's her claim any way. And capitalism is always a woman who gets beat up. And learns to like it. Some of you may know the awful Swept Away that Madonna did a few years back. That was a remake of one of Lina Wertmuller's films.

So they start handing out Best Director at the end of the 1920s and yet only 4 women have ever been nominated and only one has won.

Thank you, pig boyz -- and include the disgusting Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and the whole Center for Constitutional Rights -- for ensuring that a woman was not nominated this year.

No woman was nominated for Best Director.

You are pigs. Filthy, lying pigs. Who hate women and work overtime to destroy them.

Thursday,
January 10, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, State of Law starts
another fist-fight in Parliament, the Minister of Youth and Sports
refuses to testify before Parliament, a new poll on Iraq contains very
disturbing numbers, a tone-deaf or anti-Semitic group doesn't help
Hagel's chances to become Secretary of Defense, more people on the left
get vocal about the nomination, and more.

Emily Swanson (Huffington Post) reports
on a Huffington Post - YouGov poll which found 52% of those surveyed
think the Iraq War was a mistake (31% say it wasn't) and 55% say it
wasn't worth fighting (27% say it was) -- the poll has a plus or minus
3.7% margin of error. Those aren't good numbers. If you doubt that, visit the Podesta Brothel that is Think Progress
and you'll see them covering the poll -- sort of. The best figure
(still disappointing) is the 55%. So they work that in but ignore the
52%. It's very dishonest of them to grab the 55% and not note the 52%.
Neither figure is a good one but the 52% is more important.

It's
more important not just because it's the lower number but also because
of the questions asked. 52% of those surveyed say the Iraq War was a
mistake. That number should be much higher. I'm not speaking of my
personal opinion yet. I'm speaking of attitudes in surveys.
Respondents, in the history of modern polling, are more apt to say a war
or conflict was a mistake than they are to say it wasn't worth
fighting. Why?

Mistake goes to government.
Fighting goes to the service members. People are more comfortable
calling out decisions by the government than calling out rank-in-file
members of the military and when you get to the issue of "fighting" and
it's value or worth, for many Americans, you are evaluating what the
military on the ground did or did not do.

Maybe
the public has changed or maybe the wording was different or maybe they
just got a non-representative sample. I would love for that to be true
because the numbers themselves are disturbing.

The Iraq War is not over. Analyzing the deaths, the number injured and the incidents of violence for 2012, Iraq Body Count concluded,
"In sum the latest evidence suggests that the country remains in a
state of low-level war little changed since early 2009, with a
'background' level of everyday armed violence punctuated by occasional
larger-scale attacks designed to kill many people at once." So let's
bust that little myth first. Second, US troops did not all leave. Some
15,000 moved over into Kuwait (and at least 13,000 of them remain).
They were stationed there because of Kuwait's proximity to Iraq -- so
that they could be quickly ordered back in. 'Trainers,' Marines
guarding the US Embassy staff, Special-Ops, etc. did not leave and
remain in Iraq. In fact, the number of US Special-Ops in Iraq increased
in the second half of 2012. September 26th, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

Iraq
and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in
the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General
Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed
to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

Or as William Rivers Pitt (Truthout) put it
last month, "if you think we're not still at war in Iraq, I can
introduce you to some military families who are still posting
love-you-be-safe letters to that particular delivery code." So that
should explode myth two.

There
are a ton of reasons to continue focusing on Iraq here in the US. But
if people only care about themselves then maybe now some on the left
who've argued it doesn't matter (including two friends with The Nation
magazine) will wake up? We've gone over what could happen repeatedly
in the last years. We did so at length August 20, 2010 in "The war continues (and watch for the revisionary tactics."

If
you're old enough, you saw it with Vietnam. That illegal war ended
with the government called out for its actions. And some people -- a
lot in fact -- just moved on. The weakest of the left moved on because
it wasn't 'polite' to talk about it or it wasn't 'nice' or 'can't we all
just get along' and other nonsense. Others talked about things because
they didn't care about Vietnam, the Vietnamese or the US service
members. And, after all, they had a peanut farmer from Georgia to
elect, right? And bit by bit, year by year, all these lies about
Vietnam took root. The press turned the people against it! The US
could have won if the military's hands hadn't been tied! All this
nonsense that, back when the public was paying attention in the early to
mid-seventies, would have been rejected outright by the majority of
Americans.

Jane Fonda explains in the amazing documentary Sir! No Sir!,
"You know, people say, 'Well you keep going back, why are you going
back to Vietnam?' We keep going back to Vietnam because, I'll tell you
what, the other side does. They're always going back. And they have to
go back -- the Hawks, you know, the patriarchs. They have to go back
because, and they have to revise the going back, because they can't
allow us to know what the back there really was."

And
if you silence yourself while your opponent digs in on the topic, a
large number of Americans -- including people too young to remember what
actually happened -- here nothing but the revisionary arguments.
Jane's correct, the right-wing always went back to Vietnam. They're at
fork in the road probably because, do they continue to emphasize Vietnam
as much as they have, or do they move on to Iraq. Victor Davis
Hanson's ready to move on to Iraq. He's not the only one on the right.

And on the left we have silence.

And
that is why revisionary tactics work. It's not because revisions are
stronger than facts. It's because one side gives up. And the left --
check The Progressive, The Nation, etc.* -- has long
ago given up on even pretending to care about Iraq -- about the Iraq
War, about the Iraqis, about the US service members. [*But not In These Times -- they've continued to feature Iraq about every six months. Give them credit for that.]

We're seeing again what happens in silence. When we're silent on the left, when we silence ourselves, we lose and we lose big.

I'm
going to toss out some poll numbers to illustrate how bad the results
of The Huffington Post - YouGov poll is. The easiest way to find these
numbers is to refer to Polling Report and scroll down.

In
December, 2011, as most US troops were being taken out of Iraq (what
the Pentagon rightly called a drawdown, not a "withdrawal"), there was a
CNN - ORC Poll which asked, "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in
Iraq?"

The results? 66% opposed. 31% favored. From 66% opposed in December 2011, the against-the-war opinion has dropped to 52%?

That's
not good news. That's why the Podesta Bordello ran from that figure.
We can't run from it. Running from the topic of Iraq has led us to this
point where at least 10% opposition to the Iraq War has vanished. (At
least 10%? I'm factoring in the potential margin of error.)

On
the left, we're silent. Very few of us acknowledge Iraq today. If we
do, it's a sentence or two. Or we're using the Iraq War to praise some
politician. We're not talking about the realities, we're not covering
the birth defects, we're not interested in the continued struggle, the
abuse of LGBTs, the rape and torture of women in Iraqi prisons, go down
the list.

On the left, we convince ourselves
that we have something better and more important to do. That's not
happening on the right. On the right, they're covering the continued
tragedy that is the Iraq War. They're covering the results of it.
They're talking about. They're addressing it.

This
is what happens one side is silent. This is not new. This is not
novel. Here, we have discussed this concept since at least 2005. We
warned about it while the US military was involved in 'combat
operations.' We warned about it when Barack, echoing Bush's 'major
combat has ended' b.s., declared that combat operations were over.
We've warned about it. That's not because I'm a genius.

That's
because this is what happens and it happens over and over. Know the
patterns. They do repeat unless you break them. That's not just
therapy, that's history.

I was standing here shaking my head in silence until the friend I'm dictating this too just asked, "Are you still there?"

Which
is a question with a number of answers. Yes, we are still here (the
community, visitors and me). And this is exactly why we are still
here. You cannot talk away from this topic without repercussions. And
we're seeing that right now.

While I was being silent, however, I was thinking of how many years it took to rewrite Vietnam, how many movies (The Deer Hunter,
Sylvester Stallone's awful films, and so many, many more), how many
books, how many columns, on and on. It is a cottage industry, the
revisionary history of Vietnam. People have made big money there.

By
contrast, they haven't had to work that hard on Iraq. They certainly
haven't put in the same amount of time that their cohorts did on
Vietnam.

According to The Huffington Post -
YouGov poll, only 52% think the Iraq War was a mistake. In ten years,
that's going to be nothing. In ten years, if the silence from those of
us on the left continues, those numbers will be reversed with 52% (or
more) arguing the Iraq War wasn't a mistake and basing that on the fact
that the left doesn't care enough to object to and refute the lies,
doesn't care enough to cover the damage.

Every
day the sun rises. If every day, a large group of people make it their
life's work to insist that the sun doesn't rise every day and no one
bothers to refute it, despite the fact that sun rises every day, you
will find public opinion registering the belief that it doesn't. It may
be a very small number, but you will find it in the polling. If the
one group continues to insist for years that the sun doesn't rise every
day, and the other side continues to greet that claim with silence, you
will see that small number rise in consecutive polls.

That's
not because people are stupid or because people are dumb. Most people
are very busy with their lives, children, job, school, just surviving,
whatever. And if they try to follow what's going on in the limited
amount time that they can devote to 'current events' and political
'discussions' but all they hear is one side, it doesn't matter what that
one side says, a number of people will accept it as truth.

That
will happen because it is repeated over and over. Joseph Goebbels was
a Nazi which means he was an idiot. People praise him or cite him for
his assertion: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained
only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Let's just
deal with the first sentence. (And I'm talking about what an idiot
Goebbels is here. I'm not comparing War Hawks on Iraq to Goebbels. I
don't generally make Nazi comparisons as a rule.) "If you tell a lie
big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it." Goebbels didn't do the work required.

It's
not telling a lie or spin that helps it succeed. It's this taking
place in a vaccuum with other opinions absent. Not because of fear.
There is no fear today in the United States that if you call the Iraq
War a mistake you will end up harmed or punished or shunned or
whatever. There's no liability, there's no loss or potential loss at
present.

The lie succeeds not just because
it's being repeated and not because the government suppressing truth but
because those of us who know the Iraq War was wrong are silencing
ourselves.

That example of the rising sun?
People have limited time. It's not just that they hear, via the media,
the claim that the sun doesn't rise every day. It's also that they're
media trained. Meaning, in the US we expect that truth is presented as
fact. Truth requires nothing but to be said. Media training in the US
tells us that 'controversial' or 'disputed' issues require balance. So
when the only one speaking is from one side, to the average American
media consumer, that person must be speaking the truth because no one's
there objecting. Surely, if this person claiming that the sun didn't
rise every day was wrong or even just potentially wrong, there would be
another voice and it would point out that the person was wrong.

Media
training in the US, and we're all trained in it regardless of
rejection, embrace or indifference, allows revisionary history to take
root when one side falls into silence.

"Mistake."
Some may argue that the term isn't concrete and even point out that a
few opposed to the Iraq War have insisted it not be called a mistake,
that's it's a crime, that the actions of the United States government
were criminal. I believe Bush committed War Crimes, so I can certainly
understand that point of view.

Was that point of view at play in the poll? Could be. Maybe that explains the low 52% figure?

But
then there's the 'worth it' issue with 55% saying it wasn't worth it.
CBS News did a poll in November of 2011. They used charged questions.
They asked about worth and used worth measured against the loss of US
lives. To me, that's perfectly fine, wars cost lives, let's be honest
about it. But to others, that's a charged question. They asked about
worth twice. In the other question, it was basically the same, but the
invoked Saddam Hussein's name. By invoking Hussein (again, charged
question), they were able to signifcantly alter the responses. Saddam
Hussein, former leader of Iraq until the US invasion, was seen as a
madman (probably true) and much worse.

Respondents
told CBS the war was not worth it, by 67%, when asked about the loss of
American lives. However, when Saddam Hussein's name was invoked, this
same group of respondents, changed their answer. It went from only 24%
saying it was "worth it" to 41%. The 67% saying it was not worth it
dropped to 50% when Saddam Hussein's name was invoked. Same group of
people, same survey. Not a follow up, not a month later. Same people,
same survey, same phone call.

All
in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits
to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting,
or not?

Worth fighting . . . . . . . . 27%

Not worth fighting . . . . . .55%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%

Invoking
Saddam Hussein's name in 2011, CBS News was able to knock 17% points
away from the group saying the Iraq War was not with it. Without
invoking Saddam Hussein's name in 2013, Huffington Post - YouGov is able
to knock 12% points off the group saying "not worth it."

That
should be disturbing to all who opposed the Iraq War. The shift in the
second question ("worth it") appear to back up the numbers -- or the
veracity of the numbers -- for the poll's other big question (Iraq War,
mistake or not). And the poll about Bush that found he was basically
soaring in approval ratings also go to a trend that may be emerging.

Iraq
isn't a topic that ever should have been dropped in the US. Set aside
the US military (service members died and were wounded there, service
members spent time there, it's part of their lives). On a cost basis,
there should have been continued interest. A ton of US tax payer money
went into that illegal war. The US government is in a supposed crisis
right now because it needs a ton of money. Hmm. Let's keep pretending
the two aren't connected.

There's also the
very real impotant detail that Iraqis are people. They're not an image
on the TV screen. When you stop watching, they don't cease to exist.
When you stop watching, violence still continues.

There
was never a good reason to walk away from Iraq. But the bulk of the
left did it and did it to enshrine Barack Obama. We're seeing the
effects now. Here's some cold, hard truth: Barack Obama no longer
matters. He won't matter again until he dies. Then he'll get a state
funeral and people will cry and mourn and endlessly gasbag. But he
doesn't matter right now. He's in his second term. What matters right
now, and DC watchers know it, is who sets themselves up for a future?
Not just a future run for president. But who's going to be the Judas
(or the George Steph, if you prefer)? Who's going to be the one who
goes from low level assistant we never heard of to the press favorite
who gets credited with everything? That's what people are watching for
now.

Barack's story is over. He was the
44th US President. He was elected to two terms. Think about your grade
school history. The story is over. (Barring a sex scandal or a
reality TV show.) Congress and White House staffers are now the ones
who will achieve or fail.

So maybe grasping that, The Nation or The Progressive
or Pacifica Radio or some left outlet can suddenly start to rediscover
Iraq? Iraq matters not only in terms of history and what was. It also
matters in terms of the next big US war. And when opposition to the
Iraq War is so small today -- as demonstrated by the poll -- then the US
government can have any war it wants. And I'm not saying anything the
White House or a future White House isn't already aware of.

Iraq was slammed with violence today. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) counts 12 dead. All Iraq News reports
that the President of the University of Diyala, Abbas al-Dulaimi,
survived an assassination attempt when his motorcade was targeted with
bombings resulting in the deaths of 2 bodyguards with three more left
injured. They also note a roadside bombing in central Baghdad left one employee of Parliament injured. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Baquba home invasion left 1 Iraqi military officer dead while the homes of two Sahwa members were bombed killing both men. AFP notes a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left eleven people injured. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports the death toll from the Baghdad car bombing has risen to 5 and the number injured is fifteen.

We
first noted in our 2009 analysis that our six-monthly data for the year
'may indicate that the situation is no longer improving', as it had
done dramatically in comparison to the height of sustained violence in
2006 - 2008. This was borne out by data for 2010 and then 2011, during
which the years the levels of violence, as measured in the number of
civilians killed annually, were almost identical."

We're
not done with the violence yet. There was a fist-fight in Parliament.
How does the Iraqi government expect violence to decrease in Iraq when
MPs think threats and violence are the tools to resort to?

In
addition, you'd think Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law would advise all
of its members on conduct and how their actions can reflect poorly not
only on themselves but also on the political slate State of Law all the
way up to the prime minister (Nouri). But over and over, year after
year, State of Law MPs keep throwing punches in Parliament. Already
this week, there's been one fight. Today, State of Law takes to the
Parliament to defend their title: Nouri's Neandrathals. All Iraq News explains
Parliament was supposed to be questioning Jassim Mohammed Jaafar
(Minister of Youth and Sports) when State of Law MP Abbas al-Bayati
decided to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee by starting a
fight with Bahaa al-Arajil of Moqtada al-Sard's parliamentary bloc. Tuesday, it was State of Law's Ali Alfalh starting a physical fight in Parliament.

Maybe
it's time to stop referring to "sessions" of Parliament and instead use
the term "rounds." That'll be helpful at the end of the year, for
example, when they can proclaim that Parliament had 152 rounds in 2013
and that, in those rounds, State of Law picked 112 fights.

Al Mada reports
the Kurdistan Alliance is in preparation for questioning Nouri before
the Parliament but they expect him to attempt to use the federal court
in an attempt to get out of appearing before Parliament. In case that
doesn't work, State of Law is gathering signatures in an attempt to
remove Osama al-Nujaifi as Speaker of Parliament. They have 130
currently. All Iraq News notes
MP High Nassif has issued a statement declaring that Nouri is in
violation of the Constitution and she disputes his claim to a mandate
noting that a mandate would come from the people and the prime minister
is elected by the Parliament. The article also notes that the bill on
the three presidencies was read yesterday in Parliament. The bill
seeks to limit all three to two terms. Currently, the Constitution
limits the President of Iraq to two terms. The three presidencies are
the Presidency, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament. The proposed
amnesty law was supposed to have been read today as well. Alsumaria notes the reading has now been kicked back until Monday. All Iraq News reminds that an amnesty law is one of the demands by those engaged in the ongoing protests.

Dar Addustour writes
about Nouri's speech yesterday attacking the protesters. He said that
Iraq's too young for protests. He called on the police to arrest
protesters, declared they were being paid by foreigners and floated that
they should have to pay $100 to protest. You'll note the silence from
the White House on the protests. If the State Dept mentions them today,
no doubt, it will just be to provide Victoria Nuland with another
chance to smear them. Kitabat reports Nouri sent at least two military brigades to Anbar Province yesterday to target the protesters.

While Nouri pushes violence (isn't that always his answer), All Iraq News notes
that Iraqiya is holding a meeting today to discuss the protesters
demands and the refusal of the government to recognize these demands.
Iraqiya is headed by Ayad Allawi. Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi is also with the Iraqiya political slate. They came in first
in the March 2010 elections and would have gotten the post of prime
minister were it not for the White House's refusal to let anyone but
Nouri be prime minister.

Prime
Minister Maliki's challenges right now are not so much with parliament,
but more with Iraq's political elite. The prime minister has managed to
alienate most of the elite, even while remaining popular with many
ordinary Iraqis. Early elections are, in fact, one of the demands of the
political groups opposing Maliki who want nothing more than to replace
the prime minister. This could be achieved either through early
elections or a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. Some would
settle for a pledge from Maliki that he will not seek a third term in
office.

The vote
of no confidence route was tried last summer and failed, largely because
the Sadrist bloc backed away from their pledges to support the ouster.
Maliki, in provoking the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Sadrists (who are
Shiites) all simultaneously, may have pushed his luck too far this time.
[However,] the chances of these groups staying united in parliament
long enough to conduct a vote of no-confidence is still unlikely, not
least due to the inevitability of Iranian counter-pressure.

In
theory, the street, more than parliament, could be the source of
political pressure on Maliki, but this would require the Sunni movement
merging with a robust Sadrist street movement. Although there have been
efforts over the past days to broker this marriage, much history and
suspicion lie between the two groups, making an effective merger a
challenge. Moreover, most Iraqis, after decades of trauma, are not
disposed to take to the streets to change their government, when (unlike
the other "Arab Spring" countries) elections provide an option.

On
the above? Those are her opinions and her opinion is also highly
anti-Moqtada al-Sadr. I raise that specifically because she claims
Moqtada killed the no-confidence vote. I'm sure she has some source she
can cite to back that up. But that source really doesn't carry weight
with me. We followed that story in real time, Sadr's bloc was appalled
that the no-confidence vote was called off. In adddition, there was no
rupture between Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi and Sadr or between KRG President
Massoud Barzani and Sadr. If Moqtada had been the cause, Allawi and
Barzani would have distanced themselves to a noticeable degree. They
did not.

Jalal Talabani was visited by the US
government and the Iranian government before suddenly declaring the
no-confidence vote was dead. Jalal's spoken very little about the vote
pubilcly since announcing it was off. However, he did give one
interview where he was clearly angry and on the defensive regarding the
no-confidence vote. In that interview, he noted a Shi'ite figure who
had pushed for the no-confidence vote only to turn on it. Jalal spoke
about that and said this person was the first one to raise the issue of a
no-confidence vote on Nouri with him.

He
identified that person and it wasn't Moqtada al-Sadr. Jalal called out
Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. So based
on Jalal's only public comments on the matter, based on the reaction of
the Sadr bloc, based on the reactions of Allawi and Barzani, I don't
see where you get that Moqtada called it off. (Equally true, she's
asked a question which states Moqtada is calling for an Arab Spring.
That's incorrect. Moqtada has warned of an Arab Spring. He has not
called for it.)

I
don't know Moqtada. Friends at the State Dept scoff at the 'new'
Moqtada. I can only judge by what's reported of his remarks and his
actions. I think it's really silly to proclaim Moqtada unchanged. In
2010, as we noted then, he wanted to be prime minister. He's presented
himself in a leadership position ever since.

That's
not "I am the leader of Shi'ites." Yes, he is. He's also a cleric.
But he's building a movement whether people want to recognize that or
not. I would hope that it would be movement which would results in
positives for the Iraqi people. I don't know that it will or that it
will go further. But to ignore the changes he's brought about?

That's
ignorant because you're miss exactly what does happen in Iraq. We
refer to him as "cleric and movement leader." That's in part because of
his change in tone. (I'm still surprised he didn't get more coverage
for his visit to Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad last Friday.)
But it's mainly because the reality is that he is a leader and not just
in Sadr City and parts of Basra.

Are his
appeals to Christians and Sunnis and Kurds just attempts to curry
favor. Maybe, maybe not. But what matters is what he does with them.
And what's he's done so far has been beneficial to Iraq. 2012 saw
Moqtada as the voice of the people. He fought for them with regards to
the food-ration card system (which Nouri tried to do away with) and he
fought for them with regards to the oil surplus and how the Iraqi people
would benefit from that money. A friend at the State Dept asked --
good question -- whether I would judge Moqtada the same if Nouri hadn't
gone so crazy in 2012? I think so. I don't think I'm doing a
by-comparison judgment.

And again, I can't
vouch for Moqtada's soul and I'm not trying to. I'm also not trying to
get him elected or appointed to any post. I'm just trying to convey in
each day's snapshot what the big themes and events were that day. You
can think the 'new' Moqtada is insincere or playing a game or whatever.
But if you're not at least admitting that it is a different Moqtada
al-Sadr than a few years back, you're missing the point. (The State
Dept friend pointed out that I have increased coverage of Moqtada in the
snapshots at the same time that the too-quick-to-embrace-Moqtada press
has suddenly tossed him to the side.) (Also, disclosure and reminder,
for several years now, an MP with the Sadr bloc has e-mailed this site.
The MP makes an impassioned case for Moqtada all the time. Check the
archives, it didn't effect me in the past. Maybe the MP has worn me
down? I don't think so.)

There
are many different groups that support Chuck Hagel's nomination to be
Secretary of Defense. It's a shame that the anti-Jewish section is so
quick to grab the spotlight. As James Besser (Jewish Week) noted
at the start of 2011 when US House Rep Gary Ackerman publicly rebuked
them, "J Street has become such a lightning rod in Jewish politics."
The controversial J Street has no launched a campaign that is, at best,
tone deaf and, at worst, anti-Semitic. "SMEAR A BAGEL, NOT CHUCK HAGEL"
is a petition with a questionable headline. J Street is seen as
anti-Jewish by many in the Jewish community (and, yes, the fact that
Jews are a part of J Street doesn't change that perception). Chuck
Hagel is seen by some as anti-Semitic. And to promote Chuck, J Street
decides the way to go is to argue, "SMEAR A BAGEL, NOT CHUCK HAGEL."

What's the most famous film scene that a bagel has to do with?

It's the scene that resulted in film's first Jewish superstar. Barbra Streisand won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her film debut as Fanny Bryce in William Wyler's Funny Girl.
Fanny Bryce was a Jewish comedian, a singer and actress. "My Man" was
her signature song and she was famous for voicing Baby Snooks on the
radio. Though Carol Burnett and Anne Bancroft were considered for the
lead in the Broadway play, it was pretty much a given that Bryce needed
to be played by a Jewish woman. After her success on Broadway (and in
London), Barbra would perform the role on film, one of the most famous
Jewish womein in the world during the first half of the 20th century
would be played by the most famous Jewish woman of the second half of
the 20th century. The bagel scene (script by Isobel Lennart) involves
Barbra as Fanny Brice, Frank Faylen as Keeney and Lee Allen as Eddie.

Keeney: You've got to face facts.You don't look like the other girls --

Fanny Brice: I know but --

Keeney: You've got skinny legs. You stick out. And you are out! Eddie.

Fanny Brice: I'm just trying to tell you something. Why don't you give me a chance?

Eddie: I'm sorry, kiddo.

Fanny Brice: I do a terrific time step. Look.

Keeney: Out. Out.

Fanny
Brice: Look, Mr. Keeny, suppose all you ever had for breakfast was
onion rolls. Now all of the sudden, one morning, in walks a bagel. You
take a look at it and you say, "What is that?" Until you tried it. But
that's my trouble.

Hollywood
money isn't money. It's congealed snow, melts in your hand, and there
you are. I can't talk about Hollywood. It was a horror to me when I
was there and it's a horror to look back on. I can't imagine how I did
it. When I got away from it I couldn't even refer to the place by
name. "Out there" I called it. You know what "out there" means to me?
Once I was coming down a street in Beverly Hills and I saw a Cadillac
about a block long and out of the side window was a wonderfully slinky
mink, and an arm, and at the end of the arm a hand in a white suede
glove wrinkled around the wrist, and in the hand was a bagel with a bite
out of it.

Parker's
narrative above is mean to insult a gaudy person representative of a
gaudy business. Take away the bagel and there is no story, it's a key
image in the story she's painting (whether you agree with the image or
not).

So when you say "Smear a bagel" some
may see your slogan as "Smear a Jew, not Hagel." Again, when you're a
group some see as anti-Semitic and you're promoting a nominee some see
see as anti-Semitic, your campaign has a problem, a built-in hostility.
And when you promise to send (unrequested) bagels to a Jewish man
(William Kristol)? Even more so. J Street would be wise to think up a
new slogan.

Currently a member of the board of directors of Chevron,
Hagel led the charge in 1997 to block ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol, the international agreement that would have committed the US
and other industrial nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
Hagel-Byrd Resolution, co-authored by the coal-friendly Democrat, West
Virginia's Robert Byrd, argued that the Kyoto failed to include
developing countries and posed barriers to US economic expansion.

On
his way through the revolving door to higher fame and fortune, Hagel
announced in September 2007 that he would not seek a third term in the
Senate. While his current mainstream biographies note that he happens to
teach at Georgetown, they somehow consistently miss mentioning that he
might have to give up his current position on Chevron's board.

Urvashi Vaid (The Progressive) is championing Michele
Flournoy. For reasons that we've gone over before (what the job
actually entails), Flournoy would be a better choice than Hagel and
might even be a solid choice on her own. (She does have the youth --
she's 14 years younger than Hagel -- and passion the job needs.) Vaid
points out:

Chuck Hagel?

An
anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-women's rights, anti-environmental,
pro-defense contractor Senator with a 0% rating from Human Rights
Campaign and an 11% rating from the NAACP.(3)

A
guy whose election to the Senate from Nebraska involved the electronic
ballot counting company he started tallying up the votes.

Hagel
made his fortune by owning and selling electronic voting systems, and
the company he founded has seen its optical scanning systems be dogged
by claims of faulty tabulation.(4)

Hagel's
a guy who has operated with no public oversight or scrutiny as co-chair
of the powerful and ultra-secret President's Intelligence Advisory
Board for these past three years.

His
Senate votes on issues important to service members are contradictory:
He opposed repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, but now says that
he supports lifting the ban; he voted against allowing women service
members access to abortion; he voted for the Iraq invasion but then came
around to opposing the war; he opposed the nomination of long-time gay
Democratic leader Jim Hormel as ambassador, but he apologized to Hormel a
few weeks ago.

It was August 1998 and Washington was embroiled in President Clinton's adultery scandals. Chuck Hagel,
though, had his eye on the next president. So he asked George W. Bush
if Hagel could meet with him at the governor's mansion in Austin, Texas.
Karl Rove,
then a top adviser to the governor, says he remembers Hagel flying to
Austin after Rove politely tried to dissuade him from the trip because
the governor's schedule was crowded.

Hagel
flew to Austin anyway. In a meeting with Bush, Rove says, the freshman
Nebraska senator gave the governor his personal endorsement for the 2000
election cycle. Bush said he appreciated the senator's endorsement, but
asked him to keep it quiet for the time being, according to Rove,
because the governor had not yet announced he was running. After the
meeting, Hagel flew to Omaha, Nebraska, and told a group of agricultural
executives that he was urging Bush to run. The story was covered in the
August 10 edition of the Omaha World Herald, and Hagel briefly became one of the first major politicians to endorse George W. Bush for the presidency.

But the Hagel endorsement didn't last long. A few months later, when fellow Vietnam War veteran Sen. John McCain
announced his own run for the presidency, Hagel gave his endorsement to
McCain. "He wanted to be a big guy and talk to the paper," Rove said.
"Then when McCain became a credible candidate he just flipped. That's
Hagel: mercurial, focused on doing it his way."